Williams v. Allstate Indemnity Company

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

SHERRY WILLIAMS CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 22-4958

ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY SECTION “R” (2)

ORDER AND REASONS

Before the Court is defendant’s unopposed motion to dismiss under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).1 For the following reasons, the

Court grants the motion.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Sherry Williams owns property in Ama, Louisiana, that was

allegedly damaged by Hurricane Ida in August 2021.2 Plaintiff alleges that

she had an insurance policy issued by defendant covering the property at the

time of the hurricane.3 Plaintiff alleges that after the hurricane, she timely

notified defendant of the loss and reported the covered damages.4 Plaintiff

1 R. Doc. 19.

2 R. Doc. 1 ¶¶ 1, 9.

3 Id. ¶¶ 6-10.

4 Id. ¶¶ 20-21.

further alleges that defendant conducted an inspection of the property, but

failed to pay the amount due under the policy.5 Plaintiff alleges that

defendant materially breached its contract with plaintiff by (1) not

thoroughly investigating plaintiff’s claims, (2) providing unrealistic and

arbitrary estimates of the value of the covered damages, (3) arbitrarily

dismissing obvious damage caused by the hurricane, (4) denying all or part

of, or grossly underpaying, plaintiff’s covered claims, (5) failing to tender

proceeds due under the insurance policy in a timely fashion, (6) failing to

timely tender undisputed amount owed under the policy, and (7) not acting

reasonably under the circumstances.6 Plaintiff further alleges that defendant

is liable for penalties, attorney’s fees and costs, and interest under

Louisiana’s bad faith statutes, La. Rev. Stat. §§ 22:1892 and 22:1973.7

Defendant now moves to dismiss, contending that the complaint

makes only conclusory allegations without sufficient factual detail, and that

defendant has tendered payments up to the policy limits for the claimed

damages.8

The Court considers the motion below.

5 Id. ¶ 22.

6 Id. ¶ 24.

7 Id. ¶¶ 25-34.

8 R. Doc. 19-1.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must plead

enough facts to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft

v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550

U.S. 544, 547 (2007)). A claim is facially plausible “when the plaintiff pleads

factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that

the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. at 678. The Court

must accept all well-pleaded facts as true and must draw all reasonable

inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Lormand v. U.S. Unwired, Inc., 565 F.3d

228, 239, 244 (5th Cir. 2009). But the Court is not bound to accept as true

legal conclusions couched as factual allegations. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court must limit its review to the

contents of the pleadings, including attachments. Brand Coupon Network,

L.L.C. v. Catalina Mktg. Corp., 748 F.3d 631, 635 (5th Cir. 2014). The Court

may also consider documents attached to a motion to dismiss or an

opposition to that motion when the documents are referred to in the

pleadings and are central to a plaintiff’s claims. Id. Additionally, the Court

may “consider matters of which [it] may take judicial notice.” Hall v.

Hodgkins, 305 F. App’x 224, 227 (5th Cir. 2008) (alteration in original)

(quoting Lovelace v. Software Spectrum, Inc., 78 F.3d 1015, 1017-18 (5th Cir.

1996) (internal quotation marks omitted)). When “‘facts are admitted or are

not controverted,’” such as when a plaintiff fails to respond to the allegations

in a motion to dismiss, “a district court ‘may consider’ other ‘sources’ when

deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, such as ‘documents incorporated into the

complaint by reference or integral to the claim . . . items appearing in the

record of the case, and exhibits attached to the complaint whose authenticity

is unquestioned.” Stiel v. Heritage Numismatic Auctions, Inc., 816 F. App’x

888, 891-92 (5th Cir. 2020).

III. DISCUSSION

A. Breach of Contract

As an initial matter, the Court will consider the insurance policy

declaration page and the payment ledger attached to defendant’s motion to

dismiss because the policy and defendant’s payment history are referenced

in plaintiff’s complaint when plaintiff states that defendant “refused to honor

its obligations” under the policy by “denying and/or underpaying [p]laintiff’s

insurance claims,”9 and central to plaintiff’s claims because plaintiff must

9 R. Doc. 1 ¶ 15.

show that defendant did not adequately pay her insurance claim. See Stiel,

816 F. App’x at 891-92.

In Louisiana, a breach of contract claim has three elements: “(1) the

obligor[] undert[ook] an obligation to perform, (2) the obligor failed to

perform the obligation (the breach), and (3) the failure to perform resulted

in damages to the obligee.” IberiaBank v. Broussard, 907 F.3d 826, 835 (5th

Cir. 2018) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). To state a claim

for breach of an insurance policy, the plaintiff must also specify the

provisions of the policy breached. Hibbets v. Lexington Ins. Co., 377 F. App’x

352, 355 (5th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (“We have recognized that in order to

allege a valid ‘claim for breach of an insurance contract under Louisiana law,

a plaintiff must allege a breach of a specific policy provision.’” (quoting

Louque v. Allstate Ins. Co., 314 F.3d 776, 782 (5th Cir. 2002))).

Here, plaintiff fails to identify specific policy provisions that defendant

breached in pleading its breach of contract claim.10 See Engles v. Great

Lakes Ins. SE, 675 F. Supp. 3d 702, 707 (E.D. La. 2023) (noting that this

failure “alone is enough to render the complaint deficient” (internal

quotation marks omitted)). Further, plaintiff’s petition makes only vague

and conclusory allegations, and does not refer to specific actions or

10 R. Doc. 1-2 ¶¶ 20-24.

omissions by defendant. For example, the only date referred to in plaintiff’s

petition is the date of the loss event, August 29, 2021. Plaintiff does not state

when she notified defendant of the loss, when defendant responded to the

notice of the loss, or whether defendant has made any payments on the claim.

See JMC - Tran Props. v. Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co., No. 22-4727,

2023 WL 2527168, at *5 (E.D. La. Mar. 15, 2023) (finding complaint failed

to state a claim when it did not state when defendant received satisfactory

proof of loss, when inspections took place, any amounts paid on insurance

claim, or why unpaid portions should be considered undisputed).

Moreover, the declarations page of the insurance policy shows that

defendant’s limits of liability are $152,959 for dwelling protection, $139,592

for personal property protection, and 12 months for additional living

expenses.11 The payment ledger shows that defendant paid plaintiff

$152,959 on September 14, 2021, for dwelling protection; $31,511.07 on

September 17, 2021, for personal property; $108,080.93 on January 28,

2022, for personal property; and $28,625.25 over the course of the year

beginning on September 1, 2021, for additional living expenses.12 Thus, the

payment ledger shows that defendant has tendered payments up to the policy

11 R. Doc. 19-5 at 3.

12 R. Doc. 19-4 at 2-4.

limits of dwelling, personal property, and additional living expenses

coverage. See Brown v. LM Gen. Ins. Co., No. CV 21-2134, 2021 WL

2333626, at *3 (E.D. Pa. June 7, 2021) (“A policy limit is . . . the ultimate

maximum that an insured could theoretically recover.”); Brown v. Am.

Bankers Ins. Co. of Fla., No. 18-413, 2019 WL 2169186, at *1 (S.D. Miss. May

17, 2019) (dismissing complaint on motion under Rule 12(c) and noting

“[d]efendant complied with the appropriate insurance policy when it paid

the policy limit.”). Accordingly, the Court finds that plaintiff’s breach of

contract claim should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6).

B. Louisiana Bad Faith Statutes

To state a claim for breach of Louisiana’s bad faith statutes, plaintiff

must adequately allege a breach of contract claim and include “factual

allegations” sufficient “to plausibly conclude” that the defendant violated the

statutes. Hibbets, 377 F. App’x at 355-56 (“Simply stating a conclusory

allegation that [defendant]’s actions were arbitrary, or that [defendant]

breached a duty, without providing factual allegations in support is

insufficient to state a claim.”).

The Court has already found that plaintiff failed to adequately plead a

breach of contract claim. Further, there are no factual allegations in the

petition to support plaintiff’s allegation that defendant breached Louisiana’s

bad faith statutes because the petition does not specify when defendant

received notice of the claim, what steps it took to adjust the claim, whether it

ever made any payments on the claim, or, if it did not make payments on the

claim, why it refused to do so. See NAZ LLC v. Mt. Hawley Ins. Co., No. 21-

1893, 2022 WL 1719272, at *3 (E.D. La. May 27, 2022) (“Simply stating a

conclusory allegation that [defendant]’s actions were arbitrary or that

[defendant] breached a duty, without providing factual allegations in

support, is insufficient to state a claim.”). Accordingly, the Court finds that

plaintiff’s claims under Louisiana’s bad faith statutes should be dismissed

under Rule 12(b)(6).

C. Leave to Amend

Defendant contends that plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed with

prejudice, and plaintiff should not be granted leave to file an amended

complaint. A plaintiff must “‘expressly request’ leave to amend.” Law v.

Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C., 587 F. App’x 790, 796 (5th Cir. 2014) (quoting

United States ex rel. Willard v. Humana Health Plan of Tex. Inc., 336 F.3d

375, 387 (5th Cir. 2003)). Plaintiff has not requested leave to amend the

complaint. Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed without

leave to amend. See Cinel v. Connick, 15 F.3d 1338, 1346 (5th Cir. 1994)

(affirming dismissal with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6) when plaintiff failed

to request leave to amend). Further, as defendant has tendered the policy

limits, amendment would be futile.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS defendant’s motion to

dismiss. Plaintiffs’ claims are dismissed WITH PREJUDICE.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this _29th__ day of April, 2024.

SARAH S. VANCE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE